Skip to content

Ed Schultz: Jesus Would Dig ObamaCare.

September 4, 2009

Listening to Ed Schultz name-drop the Messiah (the actual One, not the present occupant of the White House), one almost waxes nostalgic for the days of yore when liberals’ ruminations on Christianity were limited to their use of the pejorative “American Taliban”. 

Schultz is confident that “Jesus would vote yes for a public option, but some ‘Bible thumpers’ don’t see me eye to eye on this one”.

Question: Doesn’t Schultz’ shameless name-dropping qualify him for his own “Bible thumper” pejorative?  While we wait for an answer, let’s consider Schultz a bit more.

Schultz goes on to describe the “need” to fix health care as a “moral obligation” (h/t Newsbusters.org):

“Fixing health care in this country is a moral obligation,” Schultz said. “There isn’t any way around it, at least that’s how I see it and I think the public option to make health care affordable and accessible is a key, fulfilling moral obligation in this country. But some religious leaders don’t agree with me on that.”

Not surprisingly, when Schultz consults someone who might have a modicum of subject matter expertise in such matters he gets a less-than-supportive answer.  Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research council, had this to say in response to Schultz’s inane “Jesus would dig a public option” theory:

“Well at first, let me say I do believe we have some problems in our health care system in America today,” Perkins said. “And I would agree with you that we do have a moral obligation to care for our neighbors. This is where we disagree. The issue is the selective lifting of scriptures of the teachings of Jesus, like from Matthew Chapter 25 that Al Gore used over the weekend that are actually teachings to the church and to fellow Christian followers of Jesus to care for others. And I’m thankful that that has historically been the view because it was churches and religious people who established the hospitals in this country. And we do have an obligation to care for the poor. But it’s not the government’s obligation.”

Perkins also pointed out the manifest hypocrisy of liberals who suddenly think its chic to attempt to cherry-pick scriptures condusive to the pro-ObamaCare position.  Oh, and just a reminder: These same people who think that a public option would blow Jesus’ hair back invariably think that it’s okay to vacuum a human being out of the womb.  So there is that.

The truth of the matter is that Christianity, like America herself, is based almost entirely around the idea of individual freedom and voluntary associations.  Charity is separate and apart from government not just by virtue of separate nomenclatures: charity involves time and resources freely given to organizations that are wholly voluntary.  Schultz’s argument that the government is “by the people” and therefore some sort of charity is absurd.  It ignores the reality of the situation that though government does in fact derive its powers from the people, it’s an institution that consists of career politicians who are perpetually contending against the innate tendencies of all governments to become corrupt and stultifyingly inefficient. 

It is an endless source of frustration to conservatives that liberals cannot seem to see that our health care system–which, by the way, is the best in the world–would be infinitely better still were it not for the efforts of government to “help”.  If the federal government would extricate itself from the marketplace and religate itself to its appropriate role as impartial referee, interceding only when men’s rights are infringed upon in contravention of laws which are predicated on Constitutional principles, health insurance would be infinitely more affordable, doctors wouldn’t practice defensive medicine, risk could be more effectively managed (which is the point of insurance to begin with), policies could be custom made to suit individual needs and wants, and there would be a greater variety of the sort of “competition” that Democrats surreptitiously claim a public option would help provide.  We don’t need a public option to keep insurance companies “honest”; we merely need to make them compete across state lines and without legal minimums that Democrats in their infinite wisdom foisted upon insurers in the first place.  Democrats have helped in many states to create the conditions that allow hegemonic control of the insurance market where single companies control more than 70% of the insurance market in that state.  Does anyone really believe that more of the same will somehow magically cure what ails?

Files the public option alongside of deficit spending in the category of “smoke more to avoid lung cancer” in the liberal bag of tricks.

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. rkymtntj permalink
    September 4, 2009 5:22 am

    This “best in the world” health care you talk about is only “best” for rich people. This is the same nonsense we’ve been told for years and it all boils down to one thing: self-proclaimed “conservatives” don’t give a crap about anyone but themselves, and they don’t want one thin dime of “their money” to pay for anything except and unless it benefits themselves or their precious corporations. The best way to fix the current system is to immediately begin to enforce the laws of the land that are already on the books: Break Up the Health Insurance Monopolies in this country. Then we might actually see some of this Competition you “conservatives” are so fond of.

    • michaeldiles permalink*
      September 4, 2009 1:30 pm

      self-proclaimed “conservatives” don’t give a crap about anyone but themselves, and they don’t want one thin dime of “their money” to pay for anything except and unless it benefits themselves or their precious corporations

      Which is presumably why conservatives far outstrip you “compassionate” liberals in charitable donations. What really burns you, I think, is that there is an easier and more principled way of doing things that doesn’t put you elitist snobs in charge of every minute detail of our lives.

      Break Up the Health Insurance Monopolies in this country. Then we might actually see some of this Competition you “conservatives” are so fond of.

      Where anything resembling a monopoly occurs, it is because the idiotic rules the federal government has created have had a stultifying effect on competition in certain states–not because of a lack of regulation and enforcement. There are well over 1300 different insurance companies operating in America; since when can that be confused with a lack of competition? Your demagoguery is not only unwarranted, it is borderline illiterate. You hate the rich presumably because they succeed and you don’t. Good for you! I’m not rich, but I harbor no animus toward people more wealthy than I because I have what are called “principles”. I’m sorry but conservatives are through listening to liberals’ inane “two Americas” class warfare demagoguery. It’s mendacity–nothing more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: